Healthy ego?

Something that has puzzled me is the modern conception of "ego" (colloquial usage). We are taught by the learned and wise that the ego is the source of pain, and should be tamed, rather than fed and fostered. But if it is of such pernicious nature why do we have it?

My understanding is that ego is a powerful construct for improving both ourselves and others. Ego is, I think, a synonym for pride. (Perhaps some would say vanity, however if there is a line between the two it is an indistinct one) It is possible to be of no ego and still be a great person, of course. There are other excellent and sufficient motivators. However when you are in touch with your ego then you are keenly aware of your goals, your ambitions, and your limitations. Without ego, accomplishment has one less reason to exist.

Ego is both a fruit and vehicle of accomplishment. Why is it acceptable to be motivated out of love for others, but not of love of oneself? Why is it OK to rhapsodize about the merits of others but not to feel it of oneself? I am not advocating a wholesale departure from modesty, let alone suggesting we all become brazen egomaniacs – I detest one-upsmanship. However don’t repress a natural and healthy part of who you are. 

I fail to understand is why people think it so terrible that someone take pride in their achievements. I think these people are simply jealous, and their chi would be far better employed feeling inspired and lifting themselves up, rather than pouring scorn on others to bring them down.

There are vastly more important things than carrying yourself in such a way so as not to offend. Like Mandela said, “Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that others won’t feel insecure around you. And as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our freedom automatically liberates others.”

Skyfall review

This latest Bond film truly breaks the mould, as a well paced, tightly layered surrealist epic, featuring Daniel Craig as an aging schizophrenic in the throes of a mid-life crisis.

The film opens in regular Bond movie style, with Bond doing Bondy stuff, like fighting henchmen atop a speeding train. However, the film gradually evolves into a delicious macabre about an elderly man, suffering from an ever-more pervasive psychosis, increasingly confused about his identity in a changing world.

 The film's director, Sam Mendes said, “We thought a good way to represent his building confusion was to have a sequence of progressively more irrational scenes. This culminates in the one where the villain inexplicably lets himself out of literally the most secure jail cell Great Britain can forge, and then explodes a tube train onto Bond using methods subject only to the wildest conjecture. We felt this was an apt metaphor for an old man failing to make sense of an information-driven, fast-moving world."

Mendes does well to establish the theme early on, without giving the twist away for free. Down and out after his final, failed mission, Bond is hurting; knowing that at his age he’s lying on the career scrap-heap. It’s at this point that – what with the head trauma suffered in the first scene, the cumulative effect of decades of hard-drinking, and unable to accept the loss of his identity as an invincible, sexually-smouldering young agent – Bond trips into a fantasy world, in which he is rejuvenated and assigned to the most important mission her Majesty’s government can offer.

Craig is exceptional in the role. Perfectly directed, he manages to convey the faltering nature of Bond’s mental self-subterfuge in a performance fraught with inconsistency. He lurches seamlessly from one extreme to the other; one minute a debonair superman, the next an ailing arthritic, painfully aware of his unsuitability for this young man’s game.

The final scene is Oscar-winningly well selected. “We wanted the penny to have dropped fully by this point” said Mendes. “The elderly – especially those suffering from Alzheimers - often find comfort and security in familiar features of their youth. That’s why we had Bond  (pursued by the villain) stupifyingly flee the safety of MI6, and - having thrown reason to the winds by this point – retreat to his remote childhood home in the highlands of Scotland."

Responding to reports that some audiences missed the tragic psychological subtext, Mendes said, “We were happy to leave it ambiguous whether Bond actually goes through this, or whether he’s in a care home imagining it. The key thing we wanted to drive home was the plot's total privation of ANY objective logic or realism. It's this that gives the film its poignant message about age-related psychosis and mental disease.

Feature length public announcement to star Liam Neeson

In an attempt to redress Ed Miliband’s public credibility gap before the upcoming general election, Labour have commissioned a feature-length public announcement video, to star Hollywood alpha-male, Liam Neeson, in the leading role of Mr Miliband.

“We have taken on board voter feeling that for whatever reason Ed is not seen as a Leader-in-Waiting of these great isles. However, we are confident that with Mr Neeson on board we’ll soon have you stupid plebs drooling at the prospect; like one of Pavlov’s more feeble-minded canines at the tinkling of a bell”, said one Miliband aide.

Neeson, most identifiable for his universally lauded “I will find you, and I will kill you” speech, in the hit action-movie Taken, is looking forward to taking on the challenging role of Mr Miliband.

"They (Ed's colleagues, et al) keep trying to tell me about his childhood to provide something called a "back-story" - whatever one of those is." said Neeson. "But I think I'll just do what I normally do. Summon a slightly painful childhood memory – like the time I tried to pour some Cocoa Pops, but there was only that browny-white fluff left – and dwell closely on that. Then a few months later everyone’ll say how brilliant I am. Easy.”

However, there has been opposition among the back-benches to the policy. Former Deputy Prime-Minister John Prescott said “Why should we be blowin' ‘arf budget on that Irish nonce when we could ‘av Ray Winston’ off that one they’re always showin' at the moment... Bet 365.”

When the public was asked if the proposed film was likely to make a difference in how they voted it asked who Ed Miliband was.

Liam Neeson's acting coach.